\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[affil-it]{authblk}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{colorlinks=false,pdfborder={0 0 0}}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}




\begin{document}

\title{Counting the Cost: A Report on APC-supported Open Access Publishing in a
Research Library}


 Mark P. Newton\footnote{\href{http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8978-2373}{http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8978-2373}}, Eva T. Cunningham\footnote{\href{http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2819-484X}{http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2819-484X}}, Kerri O'Connell\footnote{\href{http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4012-349X}{http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4012-349X}}
\\Center for Digital Research and Scholarship
\\Columbia University Libraries/Information Services

Article accepted (September 10, 2014) for publication in the November 2014 \textit{\href{http://jlsc-pub.org}{Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication}}, special issue on library publishing.


\date{\today}

\maketitle

\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
\section{}\label{section}

At one-hundred twenty-two articles published, the open access journal
\emph{Tremor and other Hyperkinetic Movements}
(\href{http://tremorjournal.org}{tremorjournal.org}, ISSN: 2160-8288),
is growing its readership and expanding its influence among patients,
clinicians, researchers, and the general public interested in issues of
non-Parkinsonian tremor disorders. Among the characteristics that set
the journal apart from similar publications, \emph{Tremor} is published
in partnership with the library-based publications program at Columbia
University's Center for Digital Research and Scholarship (CDRS). The
production of \emph{Tremor} in conjunction with its editor, a
researching faculty member, clinician, and epidemiologist at the
Columbia University Medical Center, has pioneered several new workflows
at CDRS: article-charge processing, coordination of vendor services,
integration into PubMed Central, administration of publication
scholarships granted through a patient-advocacy organization, and open
source platform development among them.

Open access publishing ventures in libraries often strive for lean
operations by attempting to capitalize on the scholarly impact available
through the use of templated and turnkey publication systems. For CDRS,
production on \emph{Tremor} has provided opportunity to build
operational capacity for more involved publication needs. The following
report introduces a framework and account of the costs of producing such
a publication as a guide to library and other non-traditional publishing
operations interested in gauging the necessary investments. Following a
review of the literature published to date on the costs of open access
publishing and of the practice of journal publishing in academic
libraries, the authors present a brief history of the \emph{Tremor} and
a tabulation of the costs and expenditure of effort by library staff in
production. Although producing \emph{Tremor} has been more expensive
than other partner publications in the center's portfolio, the
experiences have improved the library's capacity for addressing more
challenging projects, and developments for \emph{Tremor} have already
begun to be applied to other journals.%
\end{abstract}%



\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}

\emph{Tremor and Other Hyperkinetic Movements} (\emph{Tremor}), a
peer-reviewed, open-access medical journal publishing original research,
case studies, and reviews on non-Parkinsonian tremor disorders, is
produced at the Columbia University Libraries/Information Services
(CUL/IS) through the publications partnership program developed at the
Center for Digital Research and Scholarship (CDRS) \cite{Maughan_Perry_2011}
(\href{http://cdrs.columbia.edu/}{cdrs.columbia.edu};
\href{http://tremorjournal.org/}{tremorjournal.org}). Among peer
publications, \emph{Tremor} is unique both for its affiliation with a
library-based publishing program as well as for its business model: open
access content (both \emph{libre} and \emph{gratis}) supported through
article processing chargebacks to authors. Since its launch in 2011,
\emph{Tremor} has experienced escalation in growth, reputation, and
supporting services through the partnership between CDRS, which handles
journal production, and the journal's editor-in-chief, who executes
editorial oversight in connection with \emph{Tremor}'s editorial board.
At one-hundred twenty-two articles published, \emph{Tremor} is a
qualified success in the eyes of these partners. At the outset, the
partners leaned heavily on their collective experiences to establish
baselines for production workflow efficiency and APC price points. In
the years since, much real-world data on the allocation of personnel and
costs of production have become available. The experience has proved
instructive and speaks to the increasing potential of scholarly
publishing programs in research libraries, particularly at CDRS. An
examination of the monetary expenditures and personnel investments made
in realizing that potential answers implicit questions about the costs
of those advancements.

\section{Literature Review}\label{literature-review}

There is a significant amount of literature written on open access
journal publication, including work that focuses on OA models that
employ article processing charges (APCs) to finance publication. OA
journals are most prominent in the science, technology, and medicine
(STM) fields, where they are most commonly funded by APCs
\cite{Solomon_2012}. In 2010, Bj\selectlanguage{ngerman}örk, et al. found that within these
particular fields, ``The weighted average OA availability over all
{[}STM{]} disciplines was 20.4\%.'' Among life sciences journals, gold
OA (immediate, free access to a publication) is more prevalent than
green OA publishing (self-archiving a version of a manuscript)
\cite{Bj_rk_2010}. Solomon and Björk (2012) report that in 2011 there
were a total of 1,825 journals in the cross-discplinary OA journal index
DOAJ charging APCs, better than 26\% of journals indexed there. Of the
journals studied, the largest number of them charged APCs in the
\$601-\$800 range. Solomon and Bjork also found that universities in
general have a lower article processing charge (\$461 USD on average) as
opposed to commercial publishers. \cite{Solomon_2012} The range of APCs
is vast; they ``\ldots{}vary quite dramatically\ldots{}'' from \$800 for
certain Hindawi publications, to \$5,000 for \emph{Cell Reports} (both
OA) \cite{Mangiafico_2014}.

APCs are just one option in a broad landscape of publication funding
models. Lack of transparency of publisher costs, however, has prevented
a general consensus on the expense of producing a journal. As Van
Noorden (2013) notes: for-profit journals are ``\ldots{}even less
transparent about their costs than their open-access counterparts. Most
declined to reveal prices or costs when interviewed for {[}Van
Noorden's{]} article'' \cite{Van_Noorden_2013}. Nevertheless, attempts to
understand and evaluate publishing costs have been made many times,
mostly by utilizing rough estimates. In his analysis of costs incurred
in creating and maintaining a peer-reviewed journal, Clarke (2007)
created a framework to categorize and monetize necessary tasks--from
receipt of a manuscript to publication (focused mainly on electronic
tools and dissemination) \cite{Clarke_2007}. Clarke's cost model
consists of Establishment costs, Operations costs (submissions-related,
article-related, and generic costs), Infrastructure Maintenance, and
Financial Aspects. Clarke also makes the distinction between fixed and
variable costs: fixed costs are ongoing and ``\ldots{}are associated
with the creation, existence and sustenance of an operation, and are
independent of the volume of production,'' whereas variable costs relate
to volume (of submissions, of accepted papers, of published papers,
etc). Using these components he estimated costs for set-up and
maintenance of an online journal in various scenarios (not-for-profit
publishers, for-profit publishers, among others). Using a per article
APC of \$730 Clarke estimated it would cost \$22,000 per year to run an
OA journal. Hovav and Gray (2001) reported on a case study which set out
to analyze the fee and management structure of six ejournals. While none
of the journals studied utilized APCs as a supplemental source of
revenue, the range of cost to produce ejournals ranged from ``minimal,
voluntary'' to ``\$25,000'' per year \cite{Hovav_2001}. King (2007)
estimated that ``\ldots{}the average fixed cost to publish an article
would be \$3,000 per article,'' which would essentially just cover fixed
costs and not take into account variable costs, which he notes
``\ldots{}are affected by the size of an organization, inefficiencies,
and R\&D capabilities.'' \cite{King_2007}. Hedlund and Gustafsson
(2004) surveyed editors of open access scientific journals in an attempt
to understand the cost structure based on either direct publishing costs
or time estimates for task completion related to publication. Using a
time-as-cost model, they came to the conclusion that about 163 hours are
spent per year on tasks such as administration, IT-infrastructure,
planning issues, and marketing to authors and readers
\cite{Hedlund_2004}. This figure reflects hours spent on an already
established journal, where set-up and establishment efforts have already
been completed. Further, Hedlund and Gustafsson surveyed editors who, in
many cases, likely deal more closely with content-related duties and
less with the administration and operation of the technological
infrastructure and/or other publication management tasks. Included in
publication management tasks is the oversight and coordination of
post-acceptance manuscript preparation, whether this work is
accomplished in-house or through a vendor. As Solomon and Björk (2012)
found, a large portion of smaller-scale OA publishers make the decision
to contract outside vendors for operations like copyediting and
typesetting, most often because the capability to do so in-house is not
available \cite{Solomon_2012}. This necessarily adds another direct cost
associated with publication for those smaller or newer publishing
ventures that do not have the staff or capability to perform copyediting
and typesetting.

Library-based publishing operations often do not have the capability to
take on the task of copyediting and typesetting for the reasons
mentioned above. In many cases these operations support open access to
research produced at the institution. In their article ``Libraries as
Journal Publishers'' (2011) Maughan Perry, et al. discuss the different
roles that libraries can and do play in the creation and support of
scholarly journals beyond publication \cite{Maughan_Perry_2011}: increasing
discoverability of content; advising on author rights, author
agreements, and licensing options such as Creative Commons; ISSN
registration; DOI assignment; software services and support; formulation
of outreach strategies; and training of editorial staff on publication
platform. Many of these tasks taken on by library publishing operations
to support OA publications are uniquely relevant to libraries (and
libraries functioning as journal publishers) because, by definition,
libraries are ``mission driven, rather than market driven, {[}are{]}
strong supporters of intellectual freedom, and {[}are{]} opponents of
censorship and other restrictions on access to knowledge''
\cite{Mangiafico_2014}. In 2008 Karla Hahn surveyed the member institutions
of the Association of Research Libraries to gauge the level of
involvement or interest in library-based publishing. Of the 80 libraries
surveyed, 44\% were actively involved in library publishing at the time
of the survey, and 21\% were in the planning phases of beginning such a
program \cite{Hahn_2008}. Mullins, et al. (2012) also surveyed
libraries to better understand the current landscape of libraries that
publish academic journals. Of the 43 large research libraries surveyed,
55\% were either involved in, or interested and willing to become
involved in, journal publication support, and ``About three-quarters of
the programs publish between one and six journals, the majority of which
are only distributed electronically and are less than three-years old''
\cite{Mullins_2012}. York University's library publishing operation is
one such venture that exceeds these reported numbers; as of 2010 the
York Digital Journals (YDJ) program was publishing 18 journals after
about 4 years of existence. The YDJ project benefitted from native
library infrastructure; the University landscape was crucial to the
early success of the operation because it provided the journals program
with ``\ldots{}multiple layers of support from library and university
administration, as well as faculty members, librarian mentors, and
library computing services'' \cite{Kosavic_2010}. More recently, a
survey conducted by the Library Publishing Coalition (LPC) project
yielded 110 institutional responses and data on 565 published journals,
most of which were faculty-driven. Similar to YDJ, 90\% of libraries
responding to the LPC survey rely (in part or totally) on
``\ldots{}their library's operating budget to support publishing
services'' \cite{Library_Publishing_2014}.

Also like the YDJ, many library-based (and commercial) publishing
operations rely on freely available, open source software, such as Open
Journal Systems (OJS), as a publishing platform (Figure
\ref{fig:tremorsnap}). OJS is ``\ldots{}a robust, standards-based,
publication-management system for scholarly journals, providing
editorial workflow management, online article access, full-text
searching, and interactive reading tools'' \cite{Devakos_2007}. Of the
libraries surveyed for the research report ``Library Publishing
Services: Strategies for Success,'' 57\% used OJS for electronic
publication \cite{Mullins_2012}. These numbers are consistent with the
findings of Hahn's 2008 ARL report, which found that more than half
(about 55\%) of the surveyed libraries active in scholarly publishing
utilized OJS \cite{Hahn_2008}. The LPC's directory reported that 45\%
of surveyed libraries utilized OJS; it was the most common platform
among respondents \cite{Library_Publishing_2014}. While this software is open
source and free to use and build upon, there are often ``\ldots{}some
considerable recurrent costs {[}\ldots{}{]} involved in the development
and operation of the publisher's online access systems''
\cite{Houghton_2009}. This tends to include multiple rounds of
customizations and continual updates to the system, as recorded by
Clarke (2007) who incorporates into the cost of publishing an electronic
journal ``\ldots{}sustaining the technical infrastructure and the
intellectual infrastructure on which the journal's operation depends''
\cite{Clarke_2007}. As Kosavic (2010) discovered with the YDJ project,
the use of Open Journal Systems is often not just a straight-forward
install, requiring staff to perform necessary upkeep. After the initial
set up, the faculty at York University ``\ldots{}began to ask for added
functionality and to request customizations to the software, which
resulted in the need for programming time'' \cite{Kosavic_2010}.

In addition to customizing the OJS interface to meet publishing goals,
libraries have made concerted efforts to utilize available technology to
further support mission-related goals: acknowledging preservation as a
function of scholarly publishing, and ensuring long term, permanent
archival storage of and access to published content. These principles
are oftentimes manifested in the form of institutional repositories
(IRs). Many IRs run on DSpace, an open source software application that
can be used to create an ``out of the box'' install, a highly customized
digital repository, or something in between. Hahn (2008) found DSpace to
be the second-most utilized software program that libraries used to
support their publishing services (behind OJS) \cite{Hahn_2008}.
These findings were echoed by Mullins, et al. who also found DSpace to
be second to OJS for library publishing purposes, at 36\%
\cite{Mullins_2012}. As Houghton, et al. (2009) observed, ``Enabling and
supporting self-archiving through the operation of institutional
repositories offers a number of potential benefits for universities and
research institutions, not only through providing greater support to
research, but also in providing a platform for hosting and showcasing
the institutions research and maintaining a more complete record of
it\ldots{}'' \cite{Houghton_2009}. In addition to institutional
repositories, which house a broad range of disciplines, subject-specific
repositories exist to aggregate content into discipline specific pools
of information for potential researchers. PubMed Central (PMC) fills
this role for life sciences journals; when studying OA scientific
literature Björk, et al. (2010) found PMC to be the most frequently
encountered subject based repository, along with arXiv
\cite{Bj_rk_2010}. Standards for inclusion in a repository vary.
Within PMC, once a publication is accepted for inclusion there are
certain requirements that must be met in order for each article to be
properly ingested into the system, like the ``\ldots{}conversion of
submitted material into highly structured and tagged ASCII text''
\cite{Fisher_2008}. Fisher (2008) cites this work to make content fit
for inclusion in PMC as an added cost of publication that can be, and
often is, accommodated through outsourcing copyediting and typesetting
to a vendor that understands the nuances behind ``More complex document
tagging definitions (such as the US National Library of Medicine DTD)''
\cite{Fisher_2008}.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/tremorsnap/Screen-Shot-2014-06-30-at-8.24.29-PM}
\caption{{\label{fig:tremorsnap} Article page for \emph{Tremor and Other Hyperkinetic
Movements} running on a customized installation of Open Journals System.
\url{http://www.tremorjournal.org/index.php/tremor/article/view/103}%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{Report Framework}\label{report-framework}

The following sections of the report provide a framework for considering
the costs of publishing \emph{Tremor} at CDRS---first, through an
examination of the categories of personnel assembled for the journal
production and subsequently through a review of the journal production
components and effort estimates of personnel in each component. The
report reviews costs both (1) as a measure of staff time to conduct work
in the components and (2) as a balance sheet of revenues against
expenses, and these may be found under sections 4 and 5 respectively. A
number of compromises were sought to bring some uniformity to data
analysis and presentation, and a brief description of and rationale for
these appear here:

\begin{itemize}
\item
  Both the project components and the personnel categories presented in
  this report reduce complexity of the data to provide a useful
  framework for discussion. Every effort has been made to faithfully
  recount events and account for time spent, yet the overall picture has
  been reassembled and estimated from historical data sources (e.g.,
  email, invoices, internal reports).
\item
  Some of this reduction has led to the presentation of categories with
  blurry boundaries. As will be seen, individual staff members occupy
  roles in multiple personnel catgories. In turn, similar production
  activities occur in mulitple project components. Explanation is
  provided in the corresponding descriptions to improve clarity.
\item
  All effort expenditures reported by CDRS staff are production (read:
  not editorial) allocations. Therefore, in addition to all data
  presented here are the investments of effort in editorial preparation
  by the \emph{Tremor} editor-in-chief, the reviews editor, and the
  editorial board. Effort in conducting peer-review management and of
  editorial time spent in dialogue with project constitutents is thus
  excluded.
\item
  Among the platform customizations, the development of an OJS plugin to
  manage communication and transfer of data between the OJS and an
  external vendor was especially resource-intensive, owing to a number
  of factors that include staff turnover and ramp-up of internal
  expertise in OJS development conventions. With the benefit of
  hindsight, CDRS staff would likely pursue a different path to achieve
  similar results, but the impact of these efforts on the totals
  nevertheless appear in the data reported.
\item
  An earlier account of the costs in developing \emph{Tremor} was
  reported at the 2013 PKP Schloarly Publishing conference in Mexico
  City \cite{Newton_2013}. Whereas the numbers provided here differ,
  this present work provides a new framework for examining the costs and
  represents an even greater investent in arriving at an accurate
  report.
\item
  The dip in number of work hours for library staff in 2012 results not
  only from a greater maturity and realized efficiency of the journal
  project but also from a termporary reduction in overall staff at CDRS,
  which required a reduction of time across all projects to meet
  prioritized deadlines.
\item
  CDRS' approach to open source software development and customization
  has advanced significantly since the project's inception. Technical
  debt incurred from early decisions to modify core OJS application code
  would be averted, given the current preference for a modular
  development approach and plugin-based architecture.
\end{itemize}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/TABLE-1/personnel-table}
\caption{{\label{fig:personnel} Staff with Corresponding Personnel Categories.
Represented are 22 titles and around 33 people total (accounting for
turnover) over the course of the project. Some titles span mulitple
categories as seen above.%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{Project Activity Report}\label{project-activity-report}

\subsection{Personnel Categories}\label{personnel-categories}

The history of the \emph{Tremor} project can be reviewed as a series of
overlapping project components, each attended to by one or more members
of the library staff. The project components presented in this paper
place these staff into broader personnel categories to consolidate the
discussion of their work, and these categories are described in further
detail in the following sections: Project Management; Production;
Systems Administration; Finance; and Communications. Please see also
Figure \ref{fig:personnel}, which presents a comprehensive view of all
of the staff described in this paper, with their corresponding personnel
categories.

\subsubsection{Project Management}\label{project-management}

Staff in the planning and project management category perform the
following and similar duties: manage production schedules, establish
editorial partner meetings and agendas, review and coordinate vendor
deliverables {[}both to the journal site and to PubMed Central (PMC){]},
schedule staff time for maintenance and new development work, and report
on all progress through to CDRS administration.

There have been a number of CDRS personnel devoted to planning and
project management. Near the project's outset, the director and the
production manager were heavily involved in establishing the project's
priorities and deliverables. As the project matured, these duties were
handled in turn by the senior project manager and then subsequently her
deputy, the project coordinator. Other associated library staff who have
participated in a consultative role in project planning meetings were
considered for this category, and we therefore add also the Director of
the Copyright Advisory Office, who provided essential insights related
to author agreements and content licensing. The head of usability (now a
vacant position) also played an early key role in site assessment and
information architecture development, here grouped among Project
Management duties.

\subsubsection{Production}

Production across CDRS projects is largely a technical function with programming staff working on open-source and locally developed applications to achieve a range of desired outcomes elicited from project partners. From the outset, CDRS staff and the \textit{Tremor} editor-in-chief wanted to put the journal on an open source publishing platform to ensure a measure of ongoing customization and flexibility. As is done on the majority of its other publishing projects, a CDRS Web developer was tasked by Project Management with the primary responsibility of setting up, developing, and maintaining the \textit{Tremor} codebase. None of center's projects employ a strictly 1:1 relationship between staff and codebase, however. Instead, CDRS developers work in a collaborative environment, submitting and merging code into common repositories, and the efforts of the senior application developer at CDRS were eventually brought in to the project for the purposes of increased development throughput, maintenance backup, and general problem-solving efficiency. 

Journal production, however, also includes a significant number of non-technical tasks related to the preparation, quality checking, and publication of original content (both text and multimedia on the journal Web site and elsewhere). Several staff involved in project management also assume production related duties---namely, the senior project manager and the project coordinator. Add to these the position of the production assistant (a versatile member of the staff who works across many of the center's teams) and the digital repository assistant (who ensure \textit{Tremor} content is properly represented in Columbia's digital research repository, Academic Commons)\footnote{See \href{http://bit.ly/TremorJournalInAC}{http://bit.ly/TremorJournalInAC} for all \textit{Tremor} content in Columbia's repository}.

\subsubsection{Systems Administration}\label{systems-administration}

To set up new project Web sites, CDRS staff work with the library's
local IT unit to arrange access to servers, to establish development,
testing, staging, and production Web environments, to secure access to
cloud-based source code repositories, and to configure and compile
various essential platform components. Systems Administration,
therefore, includes the group of library staff managing these activities
and ensuring the uptime of core infrastructure. CDRS and its staff have
remained the application owners throughout the project life, however,
and the maintenance of any code remains the responsibility of the
Production personnel. The Senior Systems Administrator of the Library
Information Technology Office, with the assistance of junior staff,
comprise the Systems Administration category. Personnel from both
Production and Project Management liaise with Systems Administration
personnel directly.

\subsubsection{Finance}\label{finance}

The library's finance office conducts essential business on behalf of
the journal, namely the processing of APC payments, the payment of
invoices received for production activities, and the management of
\emph{Tremor} accounts through the university-wide accounting system.
Finance personnel include an Administrative Assistant and a Business
Manager as well as the library administrator to whom they report.

\subsubsection{Communications}\label{communications}

The CDRS Communications Coordinator is another core member of the Tremor
team, with duties that include preparation and distribution of messages
to existing and potential readership. Development of mailing lists,
assistance in writing periodic promotional copy, social media
engagement, and readership analytics analyses reside among the
responsibilities captured here. Communications may draw upon the
availability of student assistance and full-time staff from Project
Management in preparing communications material. Frequently,
Communications works directly with the editorial leadership in parallel
with Project Management.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Total-Hours-by-Phase-Chart/Untitled}
\caption{{\label{fig:yearlyhours} Hours spent by project personnel by year, coded by
project component%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Phase-Percentage-Chart/Untitled}
\caption{{\label{fig:phasepie} Percentage of total hours spent within each project
component from September 2010 to June 2014.%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Project Components \& Effort Expenditure
Review}\label{project-components-effort-expenditure-review}

The project component bar graph, presented in Figure
\ref{fig:yearlyhours}, visually depicts yearly allocation of staff time
according to the structure we use for the remainder of this discussion.
For the purposes of discussion, the \emph{Tremor} project has been
divided into individual phases or components, here defined.
Subsequently, we will use these components to provide an approximate
framework of work accomplished, apportioning both real costs and
estimates of efforts from the corresponding personnel categories in the
ensuing section on cost estimations. Figure \ref{fig:phasepie} shows the
relative percentages of effort across all phases for the entire project
period. Following the presentation of the project phases and associated
allocations of staff time, the authors provide two additional composite
views of the data:

\begin{itemize}
\item
  Figure \ref{fig:avgmonthlyhours} plots average monthly hours
  apportioned across all staff and all components for each year since
  the project's inception.
\item
  Figure \ref{fig:summarytable} provides a summary of the aggregate
  data. A fuller view of the underlying data and calculations has been
  published and may be reviewed at
  \href{https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OxdJg8RrW0JPsK7Mvw-iZ-_OmgLrWb6b7ImMRFY7iGM/edit?usp=sharing}{docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OxdJg8RrW0JPsK7Mvw-iZ-\_OmgLrWb6b7ImMRFY7iGM/edit?usp=sharing}.
\item
  The sequence of major project milestones has been coded by component
  and presented chronologically in Figure \ref{fig:milestones},
  available as a linked table here:
  \url{https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YpLDlY7UHZcVqtOHWFk8vUi3o7EpUd8ZMScqABi8LlE/edit\#gid=1171552585}.
\end{itemize}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Monthly-Average-Chart/Monthly-Average-Chart}
\caption{{\label{fig:avgmonthlyhours} The average time spent working on Tremor on a per
month basis each year.%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/annual-breakdown/Untitled}
\caption{{\label{fig:summarytable} Summary table detailing level of effort apportioned
to each of the project components across years, with overall project
percentages, aggregate figures, and per month averages calculated.%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/milestones-2010-2011/Milestones-Timeline-Final}
\caption{{\label{fig:milestones} CDRS and \emph{Tremor} project milestones, organized
chronologically and labeled with each corresponding component. (Full
table detail:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YpLDlY7UHZcVqtOHWFk8vUi3o7EpUd8ZMScqABi8LlE/edit\#gid=1171552585)%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsubsection{Partner Interactions}\label{partner-interactions}

\emph{Component Description}: At CDRS, the success of library-led
journal-publishing ventures correllates strongly with the commitment to
engaged partnership between the CDRS and the editorial leadership. In
support of this relationships-first model of partnership building,
Project Management and CDRS leadership expend considerable effort
throughout the project to meet regularly with and plan work around the
needs observed and raised by Tremor's editor and other constituents,
such as authors and reviewers. Most directly, this has meant settling
into and arranging a series of biweekly face-to-face meetings where
agenda are prepared and discussed on the progress of all project-related
issues. Partner interactions, however, continue beyond the face-to-face
meetings, into regular phone calls and email correspondence in-between
appointments as well. Such partner interactions inevitably generate new
production tasks, and the work of scoping and executing these to the
satisfaction of the editorial management and the center leadership are
likewise captured here as Partner Interactions.

\emph{Project Specifics}: The production partner meetings have remained
regular throughout the life of the project, settling into a biweekly
schedule of primary face-to-face appointments. Those in Project
Management overwhelmingly handle these engagements, although such
responsibilities have moved to increasingly junior staff with the
supervisory oversight of more senior members. In later stages of the
project, Communications has become more directly involved in partner
interactions, primarily through the preparation of copy for press
releases, the management of activity on the journal mailing list, and
the communication of Web analytics insights during partner meetings.

\emph{Expense Overview}: Figure \ref{fig:partnergraph} provides the
annual breakdown in estimated Partner Interaction expenditures realized
since the journal's inception. During the heaviest work in journal setup
in 2010-11, Partner Interactions peaked, largely in response to the
number of issues around submission quality and quantity, platform
capability, prepress vendor performance, and manuscript workflow across
all parties. In the years since, Partner Interaction has reduced and
stabilized as many previous unknowns and problem areas have been worked
out.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/partner-interactions-chart/partner-interactions-chart}
\caption{{\label{fig:partnergraph} Average monthly hours spent on partner interactions
each year. An estimated 455 total hours have been spent on this
component to date.%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsubsection{Platform Setup and
Launch}\label{platform-setup-and-launch}

\emph{Component Description}: During the Platform Setup and Launch
component of the project, principles conducted a short survey of
eligible publishing software, selected OJS, and initialized the software
in the CDRS development environment. Platform Setup and Launch includes
design treatment, information architecture design, preloading of
editorial and reviewer accounts, the testing of the native OJS
components, and the development of the orienting text and navigational
structure for site.

\emph{Project Specifics}: Very early in Platform Setup, Production and
Project Management began customizing the publishing platform to respond
to editorial feedback and bespoke project needs almost immediately.
Cosmetic changes to the page templates based on individual preference
were coupled with much deeper customizations to the editorial workflow
management tools underneath. Although Production is well-versed in PHP
and the Model-View-Controller design convention (both employed by OJS),
experience in working with this particular platform was in short supply,
and building a customized OJS-based journal was an R\&D project in
production. Further, it was determined early in the project that a new
set of functions needed to be built out, permitting the \emph{Tremor}
staff to send and receive journal articles in numerous stages of
preparation with a third-party prepress vendor directly through the
application itself, and these development costs are also reflected in
Platform Setup.

\emph{Expense Overview}: Platform Setup costs, which represent in large
portion the efforts of the Production in the early phases of the
project, dwarf Partner Interactions by comparison. By not electing to
launch \emph{Tremor} on an out-of-the-box instantiation of OJS, the CDRS
team realized considerable expense in building capacity to work with the
platform and to conduct testing of journal production functions with
various stakeholders. Full-time staff in Production were committed to
\emph{Tremor} work in its launch year, customizing core code and
building custom plugins. Figure \ref{fig:platformgraph} represents the
annual breakdown of estimated expenditures.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Platform-Setup-Chart/Platform-Setup-Chart}
\caption{{\label{fig:platformgraph} Average monthly hours spent on platform setup and
launch each year. An estimated 2905 total hours have been spent on this
component to date.%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsubsection{Vendor Relations}\label{vendor-relations}

\emph{Component Description}: \emph{Tremor} is unique among many of the
journal publication projects at CDRS as external vendors are contracted
to provide several core services. A full-suite prepress services vendor
handles copyediting services (tiered, depending on the complexity of the
editing assignment) as well as PDF layout, HTML, EPUB, and XML
preparation, and more. Additional vendors have been engaged in
discussions around reprint services. Captured in the Vendor Relations
category are both the ongoing weekly interactions to deliver, receive,
and approve vendor goods and services as well as vendor onboarding,
setup, and evaluation expenditures of effort. Real expenditures in
dollars toward vendor services, however, are represented elsewhere, in
the summary accounting of all financial transactions.

\emph{Project Specifics}: The \emph{Tremor} team selected its prepress
services vendor based on established track-record in work with large
commercial publishers, ability to provide a range of services across
editorial, layout, and XML preparation, and in its willingness to
facilitate transmission of published content to PubMed Central (now
PMC), an early goal identified as essential to the success of the
journal. CDRS Production and Project Management staff learned quickly,
however, that contracting with an established vendor is little
protection against escalating costs in ensuring quality deliverables and
in reconciling expectations in organizational culture. Quality,
timeliness, and accountability have all been areas of concern for
\emph{Tremor} journal management in perceiving the vendor's work, and
CDRS staff have had, to varying degrees, unanticipated additional
expenditures of time and energy in conducting successful vendor
relations to ensure positive journal partnership.

\emph{Expense Overview}: In the earliest project phases, vendor
relations expenses were compounded across at least two vectors: (1) The
prepress vendor provided very few tools for communicating progress of
the accepted journal manuscripts, from copyediting to author-response
back to journal editorial. All accounting of vendor progress of
manuscript processing was handled by Project Management, an early
expense later assuaged by improved vendor communication tools. (2) More
significantly, quality of vendor deliverables were frequently at issue.
Copyediting and typesetting infelicities recognized at late stages in
publication preparation meant additional rounds of back-and-forth with
vendor contacts for remediation. This added expense is accounted for in
Vendor Relations. Add to this some early engagement of a separate
print-on-demand vendor that never successfully on-boarded the
\emph{Tremor} project before folding as a company, and the early
rationale of additional Vendor Relations expenses takes shape (Figure
\ref{fig:vendorgraph}).\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Vendor-Relations-Chart/Vendor-Relations-Chart}
\caption{{\label{fig:vendorgraph} Average monthly hours spent on vendor relations each
year. An estimated 124 total hours have been spent on this component to
date.%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsubsection{Publication Workflow}\label{publication-workflow}

\emph{Component Description}: Publication Workflow captures expenditures
of time by CDRS staff in posting solicitations for journal submissions,
ensuring the journal platform successfully accepts them, that editors
and reviewers can work with submissions as expected on the platform, and
that they may be published to the site as expected once final galleys
are received and approved by editorial.

\emph{Project Specifics}: Publication workflow tasks completed prior to
the journal launch have been captured under Platform Setup and are thus
excluded from Publication Workflow. Similarly, the calculation of time
and effort here attempts to separate out time spent with PMC and the
article preparation vendor, which are likewise accounted for in
corresponding categories

\emph{Expense Overview}: Publication workflow expenses in 2013, at 17.04
average monthly hours of Production time, were the highest seen since
launch and are the highest expected (Figure \ref{fig:pubworkflowgraph}).
By mid-2012, primary responsibilities for the publication workflow had
been shifted to the CDRS Project Coordinator, a junior staff position,
and overall hours committed to this work has been reduced although
publication volume increased in the same stretch. Higher costs in 2012
may be attributed to extra work in training supervised staff, in
continuing to establish and communicate a regular procedure, and in
managing against platform problems that were resolved through subsequent
development.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Publication-Workflow-Chart/Publication-Workflow-Chart}
\caption{{\label{fig:pubworkflowgraph} Average monthly hours spent on publication workflow
each year. An estimated 460.75 total hours haven been spent on this
component to date.%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsubsection{Additional Services}\label{additional-services}

\emph{Component Description}: There are a number of additional
CDRS-provided services that distinguish \emph{Tremor} from other journal
publishing projects in the center. Examples include, the work of
Communications staff to develop and produce marketing material; APC and
vendor invoice processing through the library's business office;
archiving and preservation of journal content in the university's
digital research repository; and development of journal-specific data
management policy. Where the affordances of the areas of activity within
CDRS and the libraries broadly have provided opportunity for expansion
of the journal's operations, these activities have been captured under
Additional Services.

\emph{Project Specifics}: Midway through the reported project period,
\emph{Tremor}'s editor initiated conversation with the patient-advocacy
group Tremor Action Network (TAN). These discussions produced additional
financial support for \emph{Tremor} in the form of TAN-sponsored
publication scholarships. Authors submitting to \emph{Tremor} could
always elect to have the APCs waived by responding to select questions
about available sources of funding. Through the TAN scholarships,
however, an additional source of publication support is made available.
(See Figure \ref{fig:waivschol} for an accounting of waivers and
scholarships granted over the life of the journal.) Oversight of the
waivers and the scholarship applications adds a level of administrative
overhead for both CDRS and the libraries office, and these costs begin
tracking in 2012.

\emph{Expense Overview}: Costs under Additional Services are borne
largely by three groups: the business office as it processes APC
invoices and manages \emph{Tremor}'s accounts; Communications, as it
facilitates outreach through custom mailings and other forms of journal
promotion; and through the junior staff in Production, preparing
internal reports, archiving journal content, onboarding new services
such as DOI assignment and more. With some minor variation, these costs
are relatively steady across years and comprise approximately 7.6\% of
the overall estimated journal costs. \emph{Tremor}'s role within the
center as an ambassador for the program suggests these costs will remain
steady over time, and perhaps higher in comparison with future journals
as efficiencies are realized through experience (Figure
\ref{fig:addlservicesgraph}).\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/WaiversandScholarships/WaiversandScholarships}
\caption{{\label{fig:waivschol} Waivers and scholarships awarded in \emph{Tremor} by
fiscal year date of publication%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Additional-Services-Chart/Additional-Services-Chart}
\caption{{\label{fig:addlservicesgraph} Average monthly hours spent on additional services
each year. An estimated 332 total hours have been spent on this
component to date.%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsubsection{PubMed Central}\label{pubmed-central}

\emph{Component Description}: Indexing in PubMed
(\href{http://pubmed.gov/}{pubmed.gov}) has always been an editorial
(and therefore partnership) priority for \emph{Tremor}. To become
visible in PubMed, a difficult charge for an upstart journal, the
\emph{Tremor} team elected instead to pursue publisher status in PubMed
Central (PMC), the open access archive for publicly funded medical
research publications
(\href{http://pubmedcentral.gov/}{pubmedcentral.gov}). Many of
\emph{Tremor}'s authors are NIH award recipients, and their
corresponding journal publications were supplied to PMC of compliance
necessity. CDRS partnered with a librarian from the Columbia University
Medical Center (CUMC) to handle the earlier one-off deposits of
individual articles in PMC, which subsequently became discoverable in
PubMed. Behind the scenes, however, CDRS production and journal
editorial worked extensively to meet PMC publisher-status qualifications
for comprehensive coverage of journal content.

\emph{Project Specifics}: Application to PMC is two-fold, with both
scientific quality and technical components. To become eligible to apply
for publisher status required continuous publication of a minimum of 30
articles as of May 2011. Nearly all of the early work in PMC
preparation, therefore, was handled outside of CDRS (and therefore not
represented in this calculation) in the solicitation, review, and
publication of the initial corpus, a task made challenging by the lack
of visibility of the journal in the first place.

From the production side, groundwork was laid to ensure a swift and
successful scientific quality evaluation. Extensive documentation (on
the makeup of the editorial board, on the rigor of the review process,
on the ethics standards pursued by the journal and its editor) were
published to the journal Web site. In preparation for the technical
evaluation (ostensibly a review of the NLM DTD-compliant XML article
galleys for validity and conformance to PMC idiosyncratic requirements),
Production worked with a prepress vendor familiar with PMC to publish
XML content alongside HTML and PDF expression of the articles.

\emph{Expense Overview}: PMC costs, captured as a separate project
component, also peak in 2012, at the height of the activity around
technical assessment for journal inclusion (Figure \ref{fig:pmcgraph}).
There were a number of minor areas of review and concern expressed by
PMC about the quality of \emph{Tremor} XML, which precipitated several
rounds of discussion with the XML-preparation. Since successful
promotion to PMC publisher status in 2012, these costs have been
significantly reduced and all journal content is now visible in both PMC
and PubMed, meeting the initial requirement (Figure
\ref{fig:pmcscreenshot}). Subsequent expenses have included minor
adjustments to the formatted files for the inclusion of DOIs, for the
publication of errata and article responses, and for outbound linking
from PubMed back to the journal site. Presence in PMC remains an ongoing
priority for the journal, and it is presumed these costs will never drop
to zero.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/PMC-Chart/PMC-Chart}
\caption{{\label{fig:pmcgraph} Average monthly hours spent on PubMed Central
activities each year. An estimated 74 total hours have been spent on
this component to date.%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Screen-Shot-2014-06-30-at-2.32.55-PM/Screen-Shot-2014-06-30-at-2.32.55-PM}
\caption{{\label{fig:pmcscreenshot} A \emph{Tremor} article in PMC (visible here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3889335/).%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Article-Type-per-Fiscal-Year/Article-Type-per-Fiscal-Year}
\caption{{\label{fig:typeperfy} Article Type per Fiscal Year%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{Accounting Summary}

\subsection{Revenues}

Over and above expenditures of library staff time in production and
management, \emph{Tremor} incurs direct costs in the form of prepress
vendor invoices and more, against which journal revenues may be applied
by Finance. To arrive at the direct costs assessment for producing
\emph{Tremor}, we examine incoming revenue (in the form of APCs and
scholarship support) against expenses incurred (vendor fees and
ancillary expenditures)

\subsubsection{APCs and Waivers}

The APCs charged back to authors for the five article types that may be
published in Tremor break down as seen in Table \ref{tab:arttypes}, and
the aggregated totals for each article type over the history of the
journal have been compiled in Figure \ref{fig:typeperfy}:\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lr@{}}
\toprule
Type & Cost\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
Full-length article: & \$750\tabularnewline
Case reports: & \$350\tabularnewline
Brief reports: & \$350\tabularnewline
Letters: & \$350\tabularnewline
Viewpoints: & \$0\tabularnewline
Reviews: & \$0\tabularnewline
Letters (select): & \$0\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

\label{tab:arttypes} Corresponding APCs in \emph{Tremor} for various
article types

APC levels were set in early planning meetings to provide revenue for
vendor services incurred, namely copyediting and article preparation in
a variety of formats (PDF, HTML, NLM XML, and EPUB). It is presumed that
many authors submitting full-length papers will be presenting the
results of funded projects and that the APCs may be met out of the
research award. Other reports and reviews, presumed also to be shorter
pieces and thereby less expensive to process, are set at commensurately
lower APC levels. It was expected in planning that the schedule of APCs
would cover production costs in the aggregate, even when authors of
eligible articles cannot meet the requisite fee and apply instead to
have the fee waived.

\subsubsection{Scholarship Support}

Shortly after \emph{Tremor} moved into full production, the editor
approached the patient advocacy group Tremor Action Network (TAN) and
arranged for additional journal sponsorship in the form of annual
publication scholarships to be provided to authors of tremor-focused
scholarship. Authors who cannot otherwise meet the APC may thus apply to
the TAN scholarship, and production expenses may be paid from these
monies when a successful application is made. Finance exercises
management over the TAN fund, which has received annual contributions of
\$5,000 to support journal publication.

\subsection{Cash Expenses}

The majority of production expenses as cash outlays are realized through
the use of an external vendor that conducts copyediting of manuscripts
as well as final article preparation in the aforementioned formats.
Midway into the project, a second, more thorough tier of copyediting
service was negotiated with the vendor to handle language-editing of
papers written by non-native English speakers. Other expenditures
throughout the project have included the following:

\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
  email marketing management
\item
  custom domain name registration and renewal
\item
  purchase of original artwork for the journal site theme
\item
  print marketing
\end{itemize}

These non-manuscript-preparation expenses have been summarized in Figure
\ref{fig:addlcosts}, divided between recurring and one-time costs.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Additional-Costs-Chart/Additional-Costs-Chart}
\caption{{\label{fig:addlcosts} Detail of one-time and recurring costs.%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Financials Review}\label{financials-review}

Total APCs invoiced for the 122 unique articles accepted for publication
into Tremor total \$31,300 (Figure \ref{fig:revenues}). Expected vendor
costs to process all articles to date total \$21,147.15, of which
\$10,719.30 has been allocated to articles receiving no APC revenue. The
anticipated APC revenue to date, minus vendor processing charges, leaves
a positive \$10.152.85 to be applied against additional and future
journal costs. Aggregated APC revenues against expenses per fiscal year
are provided in Figure \ref{fig:apcvscosts}. Notably, the
print-on-demand service, while live and linked from the journal site,
has not yet generated any revenue at all.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/tremor-costs/Figure-18-corrected}
\caption{{\label{fig:revenues} Table of revenues and expenditures from April 2011 -
June 2014.%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Untitled/Untitled}
\caption{{\label{fig:apcvscosts} APC revenues versus costs per fiscal year according
to date of publication.%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Expectations for wavier requests ran as high as 50\%, although in
practice, the number of requests has only run 11.38\% of submissions,
and all waiver requests have been granted. `Lost' revenue to waived APCs
total \$5,300, and processing costs for articles with fee waivers totals
\$1,656.90. (Figure \ref{fig:waivers}). It had originally been hoped
that over time that lost revenues would decrease as the TAN publication
scholarship backfills the deficit. Since submission of this article,
\emph{Tremor}'s arrangement with TAN has ended, and scholarship
subvention of APC is no longer available. The general approach of
seeking external partners to provide publication support to authors,
however, remains a key component of the future of the CDRS journals
publication program.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/waiver-analysis/Untitled}
\caption{{\label{fig:waivers} Total waived APCs for Tremor to date as a percentage
of all accepted articles%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{Discussion}



It is often presumed that publishing in libraries can be an inexpensive, efficient means of reaching local scholars with alternative pathways to promote research and scholarship, especially openly. Large library publishing operations demonstrate the capability of such programs to scale up and meet demand (the work of publishing programs at the California Digital Library, University of Michigan Libraries, and University of Pittsburgh Libraries supply ample testament). The experience of producing \textit{Tremor} at CDRS provides a view from another angle, where investment into a single productive partnership with a member of the campus faculty is prioritized. Even so, several unexpected challenges presented themselves as detailed in the report. Dependencies on external groups (e.g., vendors, indexers, even allied intra-library offices) can be difficult to manage to the satisfaction of all partners, especially in the fledgling stages of a new publication where expediency is essential. Even when the work in question is managed directly by the libraries using library staff, project requirements can dictate a difficult path, the extent of which may manifest only after sunk costs inhibit course correction, such as occurred here in platform development.

From the outset, the goal of the partnership has been to produce a journal that becomes entwined in and essential to a particular scholarly community. Recent dialogue between editorial and authorial perspectives playing out on \textit{Tremor}'s pages suggests that goal is in sight.\footnote{\href{http://cdrs.columbia.edu/cdrsmain/2014/06/open-scholarly-discourse-in-flagship-journal/}{http://cdrs.columbia.edu/cdrsmain/2014/06/open-scholarly-discourse-in-flagship-journal/}} Other milestones and signifiers of quality and community embeddedness have lit the way for the partnership to make selective investments and advance the project; having moved on from persistent identifier assignment; PMC publisher status; and search engine indexing, the team shifts its gaze to the challenges in impact analysis, content recruitment, journal data policy, and platform performance review. The potential in the project, however, is driven in the first place by the presence of a particularly motivated and engaged editorial partner, and enabled in the second place by a risk-tolerant production environment, where research and development can proceed apace, throttled primarily by the demands of the other scholar-focused digital projects across the center.

Throughout its journals publication program, CDRS seeks efficiencies and scale. For the majority of the center's 20+ publication partners, modest platform investments can be realized quickly across titles by design. At some level, this makes \textit{Tremor} an outlier, perhaps due to the idiosyncratic needs of its disciplinary orientation. From another vantage point, however, it is expected that \textit{Tremor} is emblematic of the first-of-a-kind philosphy that drives all investment and innovation in the center. Work on the journal has pioneered processes for custom Google Scholar indexing, for identifier service interfaces, for scholarship fund setup and maintenance that are already being applied to other journal partnerships. Revenue surpluses, such as those reported here, speak to the viability of the funding approach taken and invite conversations around adjustment or reduction of APC and novel application of the scholarship funds to further drive growth of the journal and engagement of the scholarly community to which it supplies venue. 


_Acknowledgements_

The authors would like to acknowledge the work and vision of Rebecca Kennison, director of CDRS, and Elan D. Louis, Professor of Epidemiology at Columbia University and editor-in-chief, _Tremor_, for their work in establishing the publication and procedures which have been reported here.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliography{bibliography/converted_to_latex.bib%
}

\end{CJK}\end{document}

